[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (evaluation of probationary employment for head of management support department).” Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해1869 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee newly hired as Head of the Management Support Department was refused regular employment at the end of the probationary period and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) whether a probationary employment relationship had been established under the rules of employment and the parties’ statements, and (ii) whether the reasons and procedures for refusing regular employment were legitimate. Labor Law Firm Law& views this case as another example underscoring the importance of correctly organizing the legal principles and factual circumstances required in unfair dismissal disputes arising during probationary or trial periods. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the rules of employment stipulate a probationary period and the employee has acknowledged that he is a probationary employee, does the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment to a probationary employee constitute unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer’s rules of employment clearly provided a three‑month probationary period for newly hired employees, and that the employee himself acknowledged at the hearing that he was a probationary employee. On that basis, the panel held that the employee fell under the category of a probationary (trial) employee. The panel further noted that, in the employer’s feedback email regarding the employee’s OJT mission, the employer pointed out that “there is no mention of the overall logical development, and it is necessary to confirm whether sufficient review has been conducted regarding R&R”; that, given the nature of the position of Head of the Management Support Department, a high level of planning/coordination ability and organizational management capability is required; and that the original purpose of a probationary period is to evaluate job suitability and aptitude. In light of these factors, the panel appears to have determined that the employee did not meet the level of job performance required by the employer, and therefore that the reasons for refusing regular employment were justified under a standard more lenient than that applied to ordinary dismissals. In addition, based on the legal principle that dismissal during a probationary period or refusal of regular employment upon expiry of the probationary period is regarded as the exercise of a reserved right of termination by the employer, to which disciplinary procedures do not directly apply, the panel’s reasoning can be understood as indicating that the mere absence of separate disciplinary procedures or of opportunities for warning or explanation does not, by itself, render the refusal of regular employment an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to confirm, through the employment contract signed at the time of hiring, the rules of employment, and any guidance documents, whether you are a probationary/trial employee and whether a separate evaluation for regular employment is scheduled at the end of the probationary period. Although refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee constitutes a dismissal, its legitimacy is generally recognized more broadly than for ordinary dismissals. Accordingly, it is important for dispute prevention to systematically retain records of your job performance and the evaluation process (feedback emails, interview notes, etc.). You should also carefully examine whether the refusal of regular employment goes beyond mere underperformance and is clearly based on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds, and whether there is any inconsistency between the evaluation criteria and the actual evaluation, before deciding whether to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the probationary/trial period, evaluation items, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and to provide sufficient explanation at the time of hiring so that employees are aware of these terms. Even during the probationary period, if the employer intends to refuse regular employment, it should retain concrete evaluation materials regarding job performance, aptitude/attitude, and organizational adaptability (OJT mission results, feedback emails, interview notes, etc.) to facilitate recognition of legitimacy before the Labor Relations Commission. Although refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee is legally distinct from disciplinary dismissal, it is a key preventive measure against future unfair dismissal disputes to establish evaluation criteria in advance so that the refusal is not manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and to apply those criteria consistently to employees performing similar duties. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether the employee was a probationary employee Article 7(1) of the rules of employment provides that a person newly hired shall be subject to a three‑month probationary period from the first day of work, and the employee acknowledged at the hearing that he was a probationary employee; therefore, he falls under the category of a probationary employee. (b) Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (in terms of reasons and procedure) ① In light of the fact that, in the feedback email on the OJT mission sent by the employer to the employee, the employer stated that “there is no mention of the overall logical development, and it is necessary to confirm whether sufficient review has been conducted regarding R&R,” it appears that the employee did not meet the level of job performance required of a Head of the Management Support Department; ② In relation to employees… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Whether the employee was a probationary employee Article 7(1) of the rules of employment provides that a person newly hired shall be subject to a three‑month probationary period from the first day of work, and the employee acknowledged at the hearing that he was a probationary employee; therefore, he falls under the category of a probationary employee. (b) Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (in terms of reasons and procedure) ① In light of the fact that, in the feedback email on the OJT mission sent by the employer to the employee, the employer stated that “there is no mention of the overall logical development, and it is necessary to confirm whether sufficient review has been conducted regarding R&R,” it appears that the employee did not meet the level of job performance required of a Head of the Management Support Department; ② In relation to employees… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (evaluation of probationary employment for head of management support department), dismissal during probation, performance evaluation · underperformance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm ※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dispute Over Existence of Dismissal (Remark to ‘Have Him Resign’)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to refusal of regular employment after probation (evaluation of probationary employment for head of management support department) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Relating to Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Evaluation of Probationary Employment for Head of Management Support Department)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article